Jakarta. A few days ago, I came across a passage in an old book that stopped me. It argued that it took millions of years for human instincts to develop, and that communicators should be concerned not only with what changes in people, but with what does not: our enduring drive to survive, to be admired, to succeed, to love and to take care of our own.

It struck me because, after several decades working with consumers and brands, I increasingly believe that we have become too fascinated by the new consumer and not fascinated enough by the enduring human being.

This matters particularly in Indonesia today. We are living through an extraordinary demographic moment in which six generations can be alive at the same time, sharing the same cities, households, workplaces and marketplace. The distance between a teenager discovering a brand on TikTok and a grandparent buying a familiar household product can seem vast. It is tempting to conclude that Generation Z is fundamentally different.

Of course, they are different. Every generation is. They inherit a different world. Their technology, cultural references and expectations are shaped by experiences their parents never had, and they communicate and discover products differently.

But this is where companies can fall into a strategic trap. Some ignore these differences and continue speaking to consumers as they always have. Others swing to the opposite extreme, building elaborate Gen Z strategies as though a new species of consumer has suddenly appeared.

Both miss the bigger opportunity.

The question I would rather ask is not, “How do we make our brand relevant to Gen Z?” It is, “How do we remain relevant to human beings, while understanding how each generation expresses its humanity differently?”

Take health. I recently saw research on Gen Z and sugar consumption showing a fascinating gap between intention and behaviour. A very high proportion expressed a strong focus on health, while many had tried to reduce their sugar intake or frequency. Yet regular adoption of sugar-free drinks was reported at zero in the study. Taste remained the strongest driver, scoring substantially higher than sugar content.

At first glance, this looks like a Gen Z paradox. I think it is actually a human paradox.

Most of us know the difference between what we ought to do and what we want to do. We may want to exercise more, eat better, save more and live more sustainably. Then pleasure, convenience, habit, social occasions and immediate gratification intervene.

This is not a failure of one generation. It is one of the oldest features of human behaviour.

The strategic implication is important. A good brand should not merely tell people to behave better. It should make better behaviour more attractive, easier, more affordable and, ideally, more enjoyable.

This is where generational insight becomes useful. It should help us understand the changing expression of a human need, not persuade us that the underlying need has disappeared.

A Gen Z consumer may talk about wellness, fitness, sustainability or mental wellbeing; an older consumer about vitality, longevity or family. The language, occasions and channels differ. Yet underneath them sits a remarkably familiar aspiration: I want to live better.

The same applies to admiration and relevance. A young person may seek recognition through social media, personal style or professional identity. Someone older may seek it through achievement, expertise, family or contribution. The expression changes with context and life stage, but the desire to matter does not suddenly become obsolete.

This is why I am increasingly persuaded that strong brands are built around perennial human values, while remaining contemporary in how they express them.

We are living in a world where consumers have more choice than previous generations could imagine. Despite inequality and economic insecurity, humanity is materially more prosperous than it was centuries ago. More people have access to education, information, products, experiences and technologies once available only to a tiny minority.

Prosperity changes expectations.

Consumers no longer ask only, “Can I have it?” Increasingly, they ask, “Is it good? Is it better? Is it worth it? Does it make my life better?”

For brands, this raises the bar. It is not enough to be available, cheap or fashionable. A brand must earn trust and demonstrate meaningful difference if it wants to remain relevant and command pricing power.

There is a reason the old saying that good things are not cheap and cheap things are not good continues to resonate, even though reality is more complicated. Consumers understand that value and price are not the same thing. They will pay more when the difference feels real and matters to them.

But premium does not have to mean unaffordable.

One of the most interesting opportunities in mass consumer markets is what I would call affordable premium: creating a meaningfully superior proposition that remains accessible to a chosen segment, while becoming aspirational to those who cannot yet afford it. It is the space between commoditisation and exclusivity, where brands can deliver progress for consumers while creating economic value for the business.

This is where I believe the next generation of brand building in Indonesia will be won.

Not by asking whether we are sufficiently “Gen Z”, but by asking whether we are sufficiently relevant to human progress.

The best companies will understand the cultural codes of different generations without becoming prisoners of them. They will know when to use television, TikTok or a new language. They will understand that channels are vehicles, not strategy; trends are signals, not purpose; and fashion can attract attention but cannot substitute for enduring value.

My experience as a practitioner, reinforced by years of studying strategy and human behaviour, has taught me that context matters enormously. But context should sharpen our understanding of people, not distract us from them.

We should stop treating generations as separate planets. They are different chapters of the same human story.

The teenager who wants to be admired will one day become the parent who wants to protect her children. The ambitious young professional who wants to succeed will eventually become the experienced executive who wants to remain relevant. Across these transitions, the vocabulary changes, but the human desire to maximise the value of life remains.

For business leaders, this creates a more demanding challenge than developing a Gen Z campaign. It asks us to understand people deeply enough to see both the difference and the continuity: what is genuinely new, and what is merely a new expression of something very old.

That, to me, is the real test of an enduring brand.

Not whether it looks young, speaks the latest language or follows the newest platform. Rather, whether generation after generation, it continues to help people live a little better, feel a little better, achieve a little more, care a little more deeply and become the person they aspire to be.

Channels will change. Language will evolve. Fashion will fade. Human nature, thankfully, is much harder to reinvent.

Perhaps that is the most useful lesson for anyone trying to build a brand for the future: do not chase the generation. Understand the human being for everyone.

=====

Rudolf Tjandra is a senior executive with over three decades of leadership experience in Indonesia’s consumer health and nutrition industries, and a scholar-practitioner in strategy and leadership.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

Add as a preferred source on Google +